Oh, one other thing about the website. At one point it automatically logged me out due to “inactivity”, but I was, in fact, scrolling through all the plan options. I guess it didn’t recognize that as “activity”.
I’d give the web site (this is CA, not the national one that go so much attention last year) a B- rating. It had some problems, but it wasn’t too bad.
Must be grading on a curve. I’ve spent money on a lot of websites and the things you described don’t happen very often. And if a site does behave that way I don’t usually give them my credit card info. Developers that don’t know how to make a stable website and does what it’s supposed to do will tend to mess up security the same way.
If past is prologue, it’s gonna be the most successful site on the intarwebz.
California DMV may have suffered credit card data breach:
**The California Department of Motor Vehicles may have suffered a credit card data breach involving online transactions for the agency’s services, a security blogger said Saturday.
According to blogger Brian Krebs, banks in California and elsewhere were alerted by MasterCard about compromised cards that had all been used for online transactions at the California DMV.
Krebs, who was the first to report the breach of Target customers’ credit card data last year, said it remained unclear how many card numbers may have been stolen this time.
A spokesman for the agency, Armado Botello, said the department had no immediate comment, but said the agency would release a statement later Saturday.
MasterCard, meanwhile, is “aware of and investigating” reports of a potential breech, company spokesman Seth Eisen told the Los Angeles Times.**
Relevance?
California isn’t very good at this data security thing, and they aren’t very transparent about informing people their data may have been breached.
And if they can’t get simple checkout procedures right, what makes anyone think they can protect your private information? Security is a lot harder than coding a simple cart. I can code a freakin’ cart and I’m not even a professional.
David Gregory had on a doofus editor from the National Review on MTP this morning. The talk turned to Ocare’s four-year anniversary today, and the GOP guy asserted that the law WILL be repealed if the GOP secures all three branches of government in 2017.
What a fuckin’ moron.
That will never, ever, EVER happen even if the Repubs manage the kind of sweep this turdball was preaching in 2016. I’m really getting sick of this ACA-is-still-repealable fantasy being a mainstay part of GOP orthodoxy.
Agreed.
With all the furor over 5M people who got cancellation notices (many of whom simple picked a better policy), imagine the outrage from cancellations as a result of repealing Obamacare.
Out of a pool of 36M uninsured who are potential enrollees, it appears that current signups are between 11.9M and 15.6M. We still have a week to go so we will have over a third covered in the first year. By 2017 the number should be even higher.
If they win it all, it gets repealed. Period. Unless of course by 2016 it is popular somehow, but if it’s popular they don’t get the White House anyway, so it’s moot.
If ACA approval is still underwater and ACA is shown to be instrumental in two straight big election losses for the Democrats, repeal will be the easiest thing the Republicans do in 2017.
Of course, part of repeal will be grandfathering. Real grandfathering. If you like your OBamacare, you can keep your Obamacare. And unlike the other guys, we’re not lying to you.
Grandfathering a few million people isn’t hard. 9 out of 10 uninsured are still waiting for a real health care reform they can buy into. Plus a large percentage of those people on the exchanges would just like their old insurance back that Obama took away from them.
And if my rates go up afterward, I’m blaming the GOP repeal.
If they go up 20% or more, feel free.
Or, you can keep up with the same type of arguments climate change deniers use.
Sounds like a repeal in name only. Wonder what the insurance industry will say.
Got a cite for 9 out of 10 waiting to buy in when one in three have already bought into Obamacare coverage? Also, since when is 12M a few million?
You’re counting all those who lost their insurance and were forced to buy it from the exchanges as uninsured.
All we have to do is grandfather a few million Medicaid beneficaries and a couple million people on the exchanges who were previously uninsured. Everyone who lost their old insurance can get a similar plan at low cost becuase the stupid mandates will be gone. Cancer patients will once again be able to buy insurance geared towards covering cancer, rather than maternity.
Cite that one in three have actually paid for policies rather than merely selected them?
Oops, gotta take off 20% right there, plus there will be more who miss their second and third payments.
Gallup also shows only a slight decrease in the uninsured, far lower than what we would expect if one third were now covered.
Again, relevance to PPACA? Hardly anyone is good at this computer security thing - for example Target stores. I doubt health insurance companies are any better. What does that have to do with PPACA as opposed to the Payment Card Industry standards that apply to every credit card transaction? I’m sure Target met all the PCI standards, for all the good it did them and their customers. All software sucks, some just sucks more than others.
Meanwhile, thousands of people in my home state have to wait once a year to get health care at a county fair. Cite from 2010: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/02/AR2010080203882.html
Cite from 2008 (warning - has auto-starting video): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/interactives/healingfields/
Cite from 2004: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12255-2004Jul24.html
What is the GOP going to do for these hard-working people who are sick, and in too many cases dying? What has the GOP done in the last decade to help?
I’ll tell you what the GOP-controlled GOP legislature in doing for its constituents in western VA - worse than nothing. They are blocking Medicare expansion, because Obama.
It is a shame that those implementing the ACA have failed to track signups by uninsured alone. Hopefully that data will emerge.
I don’t think that the WaPo writer took a hard enough look at the McKinsey report. The actual report is not nearly as dire and shows (and acknowledges) clear trends of more uninsured finding coverage. It also only covered enrollments through the first half of Frebruary.
Perhaps that also explains why the article seemed to disappear from their front page so quickly. It makes a nice sound bite or conservative talking point, but the actual report reads much differently.
Here is the full 9 page McKinsy report (PDF). Even a quick scan reveals a few interesting points missed by the WaPo :
[QUOTE=McKinsey]
All of the findings in this Intelligence Brief represent a view of the rapidly evolving individual insurance marketplace through February 13th. As such, enrollment trends may differ materially on March 31, 2014, the end of the open enrollment period.
Six key observations emerged from our February survey findings:
■ Previously uninsured respondents accounted for 27 percent of February respondents who reported having selected a new 2014 product (i.e., insured who switched and previously uninsured who enrolled), up from 11 percent in earlier surveys.
■ In total, 10 percent of all previously uninsured February respondents said that they had enrolled in a product, up from 3 percent in January.
■ More than three-quarters of those who reported having obtained coverage also said they had paid their premium (out of all February respondents who said they had selected a new 2014 product, i.e., insured who switched or uninsured who enrolled). The payment rate was higher among the previously insured (86 percent) than among the previously uninsured (53 percent).
■ A smaller proportion of the respondents who had not yet enrolled reported that they are likely to enroll, compared to prior surveyed months. However, most (65 percent) of those who said that they intend to enroll continue to be the previously uninsured.
■ The most common reason for not enrolling cited by both previously insured and previously uninsured respondents continues to be perceived affordability challenges (this was cited by ~50 percent of the respondents who had not yet enrolled).
■ Over 80 percent of the respondents who cited affordability as the reason for not enrolling are eligible for subsidies; 66 percent of these consumers were not aware of their subsidy eligibility status or subsidy amount.
[/QUOTE]
The report closes with the following :
[QUOTE=McKinsey]
Most respondents who say they are likely to enroll continue to be the previously uninsured
Overall, 52 percent of February respondents reported that they had not yet enrolled in an individual product. Of these not yet enrolled consumers, 22 percent said that they intended to enroll (11 percent of all February respondents). As we have approached the end of the open enrollment period, the proportion of not yet enrolled respondents who reported the intention to enroll has been decreasing. Nevertheless, most of the respondents who said that they were likely to enroll continue to be the previously uninsured (Exhibit 5).
[/QUOTE]
The caption for Exhibit 5 says
“Of respondents who did not yet enroll but intend to enroll by March end, a consistent majority is previously uninsured”